Comments on: Hurting Wrong Fun

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:22:45 +0000

“The Ayn Rand of RPGS”. I like that
I used the Sid Vicious comparison because I see a lot of parallels between The Forge and the late 70s punk movement in Britain. Just as Punk produced some great individual records, The Forge community has come up with some good individual games. But it’s also spawed the same level of psuedo-intellectual bullshit, throws babies out with the bathwater, and defines itself by what it’s reacting against.

By: Will Mistretta

Will Mistretta — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:06:56 +0000

“Oh, what a load of crap. He’s declaring something that is inherently subjective to be measurable in universal absolutes, with his own personal preferences as the “objective” standard of goodness.”

Exactly. This is why “the Sid Vicious of RPGs” is a poor analogy. Ron is angling to become the Ayn Rand of RPGs. Ignore the man, please. He and his little cult give us all a bad name.

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:19:14 +0000

If you look at the date of this posting, I wrote these words *before* Ron explained what he meant by ‘Brain Damaged’. I did post a followup linking to his later explaination.

Saying that, I still stand by what I wrote. Ron’s “Brain Damaged” line was stupid, insulting and offensive, and any loss of reputation he’s suffered is entirely self-inflicted.

By: Drew

Drew — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:21:29 +0000

Tim, Ron’s post wasn’t saying you are brain damaged for preferring simulationist games. All he was saying was that he has seen that people who were trying to create “story” using the mechanics of a specific set of games during a time period in their life when they were still developing intellectually have had their ability to comprehend story (used in the Lit 101 sense) damaged. That’s all.

And he wasn’t saying it to point out that these are bad people or bad gamers. He included himself in the group of people who were damaged in this way. As he has clarified, he was just pointing out something he observed and saying, “hey, this can’t be a good thing for us gamers.”

Man, I never thought I’d find myself defending Ron Edwards, but people are taking things all out of context and applying his comments to mean things he never said.

By: Michael Orton

Michael Orton — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:19:31 +0000

I don’t think Ron Edwards is describing the same leisure activity as I experienced playing RPGs 1980 to 2005. The only question which matters is “is everyone taking part having fun?” All this waffle about “functional stories” is meaningless.

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:01:55 +0000

‘Protagonism’ is Forgite moon-language for the whole concept of the Player Character. I think Ron Edwards is attempting to create some kind of group storytelling game where there is no direct connection between individual players and individual characters. This might or might not result in an entertaining game, but I can’t see it replacing the existing style of RPG.

I don’t care for ‘GM controls the story’ games, that can too easily degenerate into railroading. But sometimes as a GM I find I *have* to grab the story by the scruff of the neck, because otherwise the players sit around and wait for things to happen. That’s why I love to have players like Nicki Jett in my games; her characters are always pro-active, and drive the story forward by their actions.

However, I do prefer (especially when I’m GMing) that the GM controls the *setting* in the same way that the players control the player characters. The story (as distinct from the setting) should emerge from the interaction between the two, and be created by the whole group. But that’s just my personal preference. If other groups want to create the setting through group consensus, and take it in turns to GM, I’m not going to call their choices ‘lame’ or ‘brain-damaged’.

By: Michael Orton

Michael Orton — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:39:21 +0000

I’m sorry, but the quote from Ron Edwards goes completely over my head. What does he mean by “protagonism”?

The folk I used to play RPGs with (alas I use the past tense as I no longer have time to maintain enough concurrency with any active round-the-table campaigns) expect everyone round the table to take an active involvement in producing the story. Any GM who tries to own the plot will find the campaign fizzels after one, probably short, session.

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:38:51 +0000

That’s just.. cruel. But justified.

By: Karen

Karen — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:27:06 +0000

Forget Peter Knutsen… we need to sic T.M. “Darth Stomper” Neeck on them:

http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/2006/01/msg00062.html

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:04:20 +0000

I really think someone should sic Peter Knutsen on them…